viro@math.psu.edu said:> OK, folks - current bunch of changes looks rather interesting from> the scalability point of view, but it means changes in 3rd-party code.> Doing it during the 2.4 is obviously not an option and postponing to> 2.5 looks like an overkill since changes are massive but very simple.

Does this mean we want to kill sleep_on() in 2.4 too, rather than waitingtill 2.5? I understood that the main reason for keeping it was becausefilesystem code still uses it, and it's valid because filesystem code alwaysholds the BKL.

--dwmw2

-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.eduPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/